Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't understand why its always Creationism/Religion vs Evolution. There is a common relation that the two have.
Er, did you read the title of the thread? Please don't derail it any more, thank you. If you want to debate evolution/creationism, there are plenty of other threads to visit.
Your story would seem much more credible if one of those individuals who actually saw the Ark after the invention of photography had enough common sense to bring along a camera and provide photographic evidence that could be studied instead of spinning some wild tale, probably at a local pub, that became more embellished each time it was retold.
Well there are a number of photos of the ark from a distance. I would point out the one taken back in 1949 by the U.S. Air Force. Link below.
Then there is the one taken by Bob Garbe on page 8 on the link below.
Another, on pages 4 and 5 taken by Ahmet Ali Arslah. The picture on page 4 helped to confirm the Ed Davis story. Davis said if you ever see the Ark you will see it has a large timber sticking out from it. Arslah's photo on page 4 appears to show just such a timber. Page 5 shows almost a house like structure sticking out of the glacier. Link below.
What is obvious in these pictures, is that we are viewing something that does not resemble the natural surroundings, and shows every evidence of being a man-made structure. And at 15,500 feet, nothing like this should be found there.
Geez, I don't know Campbell, debating with you is like playing " Whack a Mole" You keep popping up with the same things over and over. I guess that's all ya got huh?
Geez, I don't know Campbell, debating with you is like playing " Whack a Mole" You keep popping up with the same things over and over. I guess that's all ya got huh?
All I have is the truth, now as new evidence comes in I will be happy to share that with you. Yet, I believe the evidence I have seen so far is the truth.
All I have is the truth, now as new evidence comes in I will be happy to share that with you. Yet, I believe the evidence I have seen so far is the truth.
Well come back to us when you do get something conclusive because with all due respect, folklore, pub tales and old, faraway pictures of weird shapes in the snow are more laughable than impressive.
Well come back to us when you do get something conclusive because with all due respect, folklore, pub tales and old, faraway pictures of weird shapes in the snow are more laughable than impressive.
The eyewitiness accounts are much more then folklore, and I don't recall those involoved in folklore taking lie detector tests and passing them. Yet it appears you find comfort in dismissing all such accounts and reducing them to pub tales. And you have the ability to (IGNORE) what experts in the field have already stated. And that is understandable because of your resistance to Biblical truth. And the pictures presented have been considered by experts in the field, and they have stated that the object in question is man-made. If Evolutionist had a fraction of this kind of evidence, they would of displayed it everywhere. Yet in order to be a good blind faith believer in Evolution, it requires you to filter out all such accounts and testimony. And it appears you do this very easily. And this is how a good Evolutionist becomes a blind faith believers in their Theory. They laught at facts, and inbrace assumptions that are based on human speculation. Evolutionist, believe speculation over facts of substance.
And you have the ability to (IGNORE) what experts in the field have already stated. And that is understandable because of your resistance to Biblical truth. And the pictures presented have been considered by experts in the field, and they have stated that the object in question is man-made. [cut "no proof of evolution" rambling]
Er, is there more than one account of an expert?
(I'm not even asking for anything peer-reviewed at this point because I've lost hope)
The eyewitiness accounts are much more then folklore, and I don't recall those involoved in folklore taking lie detector tests and passing them. Yet it appears you find comfort in dismissing all such accounts and reducing them to pub tales. And you have the ability to (IGNORE) what experts in the field have already stated. And that is understandable because of your resistance to Biblical truth. And the pictures presented have been considered by experts in the field, and they have stated that the object in question is man-made.
Tactic 1:
Make the same claims even if they all have been refuted earlier on the same thread(almost all of them by sanspeur). Ironically, accuse the other of IGNORing key details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
If Evolutionist had a fraction of this kind of evidence, they would of displayed it everywhere. Yet in order to be a good blind faith believer in Evolution, it requires you to filter out all such accounts and testimony. And it appears you do this very easily. And this is how a good Evolutionist becomes a blind faith believers in their Theory. They laught at facts, and inbrace assumptions that are based on human speculation. Evolutionist, believe speculation over facts of substance.
Tactic 2:
Change the subject, attack an entire group of people so that they get riled up on this as opposed to the topic of the thread.
It's futile to try to convince us that there is enough evidence already. Your attacks don't change the fact that your "evidence" is composed entirely out of folklore, pub tales and really old pictures of weird patterns on the ground. I'm also really curious about them annalists. How often do they look at a picture and say:
"Hmm, no doubt about it. That's definitely a 4000 year old ark lodged deep in the snow. The groves on those 3 black and white pixels could only have been made by a 600 year old man and his family"
Er, is there more than one account of an expert?
(I'm not even asking for anything peer-reviewed at this point because I've lost hope)
David Barak, a photo-journalist with some military photo interpretation discovered the "Anomaly" with a digital enlargement. He said it looked like a large submarine shaped like structure jutting out of the ice cap. This was in March of 1995.
Charles Comstock, who is an aerospace engineer and 30 year expert in optical techology noted the large anomaly on Ararat also in 1995.
In May of 1995 a senior retired CIA photo interpreter -and former colleague of Dr. Carver evaluated the photo that was taken by the U-2 recon plane in 1960. He stated the "Anomaly was too linear to be natural and that most of the structure appeared to be under the ice. He also stated that the protrusions seen jutting out of the Adjacent Anomaly in the 1949 photo appear to be somewhat similar to the decayed beam like structures.
On October 10, 1995 the Pentagon release a Photo frames 4,5, and 6 from the 1949 mission. A naval architect who reviewed the frame stated that the structure reminded him of the skeletal remains of the keel bottom spine of a ship. What struck him was that the design appeared to be relatively modern.
Peter Hsu, who is a principal naval engineer for Techmatics, Inc. in Arlington, Virginia and maritime artist spent hours examining all of the Pentagon photos and believed that the object in question might be man-made.
In 1973 during the Yom Kippur War a CIA satellite flying a routine mission over the Soviet-Turkish border was accidentally turned on, and it's on board cameras picked up Mt. Ararat instead. CIA photo interpreters in Washington were startled when they discovered high resolution photos showing what appeared to be the heavily damaged bow of some kind of huge ship protruding out of the glacier during a major glacial meltdown. A debate among photo interpreters immediately erupted over the object.
Tactic 1:
Make the same claims even if they all have been refuted earlier on the same thread(almost all of them by sanspeur). Ironically, accuse the other of IGNORing key details.
Tactic 2:
Change the subject, attack an entire group of people so that they get riled up on this as opposed to the topic of the thread.
It's futile to try to convince us that there is enough evidence already. Your attacks don't change the fact that your "evidence" is composed entirely out of folklore, pub tales and really old pictures of weird patterns on the ground. I'm also really curious about them annalists. How often do they look at a picture and say:
"Hmm, no doubt about it. That's definitely a 4000 year old ark lodged deep in the snow. The groves on those 3 black and white pixels could only have been made by a 600 year old man and his family"
Oh please, could you tell me what eyewitiness accounts have been refuted? And the Accounts of Ed Davis are not folklore, he was given a lie detector test and passed it. What folklore stories have been subjected to that kind of scrunity? And there are accounts of other U.S. citizens that have give simular accounts. Most of these accounts have come while they were serving in the military. You don't look at a picture without other facts backing it up. And those are the facts you have ignored.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
